“[T]he federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions," Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the unanimous court.
This is not a significant ruling by the SC. This case demonstrates the politicization of the lower courts in that there was no traditional legal basis for the plaintiffs standing to begin with. This was evident from the start. Thus this was a total waste of judicial time and resources for political marketing. It was also very oblivious to standard administrative public policy.
It would certainly have been more significant if the ruling had gone the other way and determined they did have standing... but then that would be one of the Four Horsemen of the Legal Apocalypse so...
Yes, I don't know how long it takes the FDA to make that kind of change. They have legal procedures they have to follow. It does seem like it should be a priority.
"The substance of the law is hidden in the interstices of procedure."—Holmes, J. (attrib.)
With only a few, notable excursions, the work of SCOTUS does not deal with the merits as much as popularly supposed. It operates in the rarified meta-law realm of the rules of the road.
No-brainer on a 9-0 essentially procedural decision...a win in the latest skirmish, but the forced-birthers are in a war to the finish, and they'll be back, bank it.
Did I just hear the Comstock Act invoked by the forced-birthers? Hmm, must have been mistaken.
But, with this Court, we'll take our victories when we can manage to get them.
Thank you for responding to my plaint; I was clumsy in my choice of words and was disappointed and hurried in reading the post. On reflection, I guess that the suit was filed with that possibility of dismissal in the minds of the attorneys, but plaintiffs went ahead anyway; and the USSCt took that fact into Justice Kavanaugh's reasoning, as he actually did suggest an alternative path for relief; the fact that it was not filed by those with standing yet is a puzzle and it now may be too late to file it now because of delay - or maybe not. Who knows?
I understand. He’s pretty hyperbolic and I read him with a large grain of salt, but it does seem pretty bad that something with such obvious issues on standing got this far. That does seem to point to a pretty rotten pipeline up out of Texas, no?
I read the link and the most interesting part was his claim that Kavanaugh laid out a 'road map' for similar plaintiffs on how to use what Abramson called the 'Texas Pipeline' (Kacsmaryk et al. + the Fifth Circuit) more effectively, and that's where the win for conservatives lies. I don't know enough to know what Chris means by his reply, if he's saying not to view this author's claims as credible? and I'd feel foolish to ask :)
Dollars to donuts Kaz will let the state intervenors slip in if possible. So the FRCP question is whether dismissal as to all original plaintiffs requires plaintiffs coming off the bench, as it were, to meet timeliness requirements.
The FDA rulings are constitutional till the high court states otherwise. I see the necessity of this case but as far as I am concerned, THIS court is rudderless and without anchor. They have flip-flopped on standing and stare decisis and drift through the miasma of”wokeness”.
This is not a significant ruling by the SC. This case demonstrates the politicization of the lower courts in that there was no traditional legal basis for the plaintiffs standing to begin with. This was evident from the start. Thus this was a total waste of judicial time and resources for political marketing. It was also very oblivious to standard administrative public policy.
It would certainly have been more significant if the ruling had gone the other way and determined they did have standing... but then that would be one of the Four Horsemen of the Legal Apocalypse so...
Is being overruled 9-0 an embarrassment for judges? Would Kaczmaryk, if he were capable, feel shame about this?
Expected result except that Thomas and Alito both avoided talking about the merits.
Election year, would have been counterproductive to their end goal.
Mifepristone should already be extended by the FDA in the US, currently only at 10 weeks.
World Health Organization up to 12 weeks.
International Community Networks up to 16 weeks.
Doctors Without Borders up to 22 weeks.
Yes, I don't know how long it takes the FDA to make that kind of change. They have legal procedures they have to follow. It does seem like it should be a priority.
Yeah for sure a priority
"The substance of the law is hidden in the interstices of procedure."—Holmes, J. (attrib.)
With only a few, notable excursions, the work of SCOTUS does not deal with the merits as much as popularly supposed. It operates in the rarified meta-law realm of the rules of the road.
No surprise with this decision. Even for this SCOTUS.
But I'm waiting for the temper tantrum from the Fifth.
Good.
Phew. And unanimous too.
No-brainer on a 9-0 essentially procedural decision...a win in the latest skirmish, but the forced-birthers are in a war to the finish, and they'll be back, bank it.
Did I just hear the Comstock Act invoked by the forced-birthers? Hmm, must have been mistaken.
But, with this Court, we'll take our victories when we can manage to get them.
They should have dismissed this case from the get go. The lack of standing was obvious. But it's a win, for now. So i'll take it🥳
I see I was wrong and apologize.
Thank you for responding to my plaint; I was clumsy in my choice of words and was disappointed and hurried in reading the post. On reflection, I guess that the suit was filed with that possibility of dismissal in the minds of the attorneys, but plaintiffs went ahead anyway; and the USSCt took that fact into Justice Kavanaugh's reasoning, as he actually did suggest an alternative path for relief; the fact that it was not filed by those with standing yet is a puzzle and it now may be too late to file it now because of delay - or maybe not. Who knows?
Lets say Trump wins, which is a possibility that is becoming likelier with every new poll being released, could he block access to the pill?
No standing. Good. Ok, SCOTUS, now do 303 v. Elenis.
Seth Abrahamson has a take on this that a 9-0 decision on standing is a crisis. This never should have made it to the SC in the first place, and is strong evidence of how bad the legal system has become: https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/why-a-unanimous-supreme-court-decision
Yeah, suffice it to say, I don’t subscribe.
I understand. He’s pretty hyperbolic and I read him with a large grain of salt, but it does seem pretty bad that something with such obvious issues on standing got this far. That does seem to point to a pretty rotten pipeline up out of Texas, no?
I read the link and the most interesting part was his claim that Kavanaugh laid out a 'road map' for similar plaintiffs on how to use what Abramson called the 'Texas Pipeline' (Kacsmaryk et al. + the Fifth Circuit) more effectively, and that's where the win for conservatives lies. I don't know enough to know what Chris means by his reply, if he's saying not to view this author's claims as credible? and I'd feel foolish to ask :)
update: although Mary Ziegler said something similar on twitter, noted by Jessica Valenti at AED.
Dollars to donuts Kaz will let the state intervenors slip in if possible. So the FRCP question is whether dismissal as to all original plaintiffs requires plaintiffs coming off the bench, as it were, to meet timeliness requirements.
The FDA rulings are constitutional till the high court states otherwise. I see the necessity of this case but as far as I am concerned, THIS court is rudderless and without anchor. They have flip-flopped on standing and stare decisis and drift through the miasma of”wokeness”.